Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Circuit Judges
Circuit Judges
A50.
The district court then discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sentenced
Palillero to a bottom-of-the-Guidelines-range sentence of 70 months, to be followed by
three years of supervised release. Palillero appeals.1
II. DISCUSSION
Palillero argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court
committed reversible error when it wrongly decided that it did not have the authority to
consider his request for a downward variance based on his policy arguments about flaws
in the methamphetamine Guideline.
In Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (per curiam), the Supreme Court
reconfirmed and succinctly explained its holding in Kimbrough:
The only fact necessary to justify such a variance is the
sentencing courts disagreement with the guidelines its
policy view that the 100-to-1 ratio [of powder to crack
cocaine] creates an unwarranted disparity. . . . That was
indeed the point of Kimbrough: a recognition of the district
courts authority to vary from the crack cocaine Guidelines
based on policy disagreement with them, and not simply
based on an individualized determination that they yield an
excessive sentence in a particular case.
555 U.S. at 264 (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).2
However, [a]s this Court has made clear, . . . Kimbrough does not require a district
court to reject a particular Guideline range where that court does not, in fact, have
disagreement with the Guideline at issue. United States v. Lopez-Reyes, 589 F.3d 667,
671 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
4
Thus, Palilleros claim that the district court rejected his policy arguments because
it erroneously believed it did not have the legal authority to accept them is supported by
the record. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for
resentencing. On remand, the district court is free to adopt Palilleros policy argument
and impose a different sentence if it chooses to do so, but it is clearly not required to.3
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we will vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Palillero also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court failed to give sufficient consideration to the factors enumerated in 18
U.S.C. 3553(a). His main argument on the substantive unreasonableness of his
sentence is that the district court used what he contends is the flawed methamphetamine
Guideline , 2D1.1(c)(4), as the initial benchmark and driving force behind its sentence.
However, because we will vacate the sentence for the reasons stated in this opinion, we
will not address this issue at this time.
5